Today there was a patriotic holiday in Russia which has drawn a plenty of nationalists to Moscow for the annual jingoist march. On this occasion the «liberal democratic party» leader and parliamentarian Zhirinovsky delivered these claims in a very patriotic speech.
Is Zhirinovskiy full of shit?
Do you have a transcript (and preferably a translation) of the speech?
Russia certainly had a very large role in the defeat of France and Germany. Their role in liberating China (from the Japanese, I assume?) is debatable, and their involvement in the American revolution is mostly indirect, which is to say, they kept trading with the Americans and refused Britain's request for support in the war.
Frankly I'm impressed that he has the balls to claim that an overt Soviet attempt to destabilize and oust the legitimate government of China in favor of an ideological ally as a "liberation." Because that's what happened. Soviet troops gave the arms of the surrendered Kwantung Army troops to the Communist Party of China, which in conjunction with a US arms embargo to the Nationalist government helped the CPC win the Chinese Civil War.
Allow me to take the time here to dispute that the Soviets played a significant role in "liberating" the Nationalists from the Japanese. By the time of the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, Kuomintang forces, now being properly supplied thanks to the recapture of the Burma Ledo Road and the "Hump" air transport scheme, had recaptured Guangxi, the last major Japanese holding in Southern China, and Japanese forces were on the retreat from Hunan province. It was very likely that by the end of the year most of China proper would be back in Chinese hands, even without a Soviet intervention.
I mean at this point if one wanted to treat this guy seriously China might as well claim that if it weren't for the Ming rising up against the Mongol Yuan Dynasty that Russia would still be under the Tartar yoke.
Short answer: yes he is full of shit.
Of the dozens of examples of Russia's Imperialist policies over the centuries, the most obvious counter examples to Zhirinovskiy's statements would be these:
At the Congress of Vienna, after Napoleon's downfall, Russia was one of the victors and as such, divided the spoils of Imperial France, namely the Grand Duchy of Warsaw(which, beforehand as Poland was invaded and conquered by Catherine the Great after they declared their own constitution, something Imperial Prussia and Russia couldn't abide) which was quickly gobbled up, just as Stalin would gobble up Poland in 1939 alongside Hitler. Napoleon's two causes for invading Russia in 1812 were a)Tsar Alexander's reneging of the Treaty of Tilsit, and b)Tsar Alexander's designs on The Grand Duchy of Warsaw, including bullying and the amassing of troops on the border to impose his will on the Polish people.
Stalin forcibly imposed the will of the USSR on many client states throughout the waning and aftermath of WW2, mostly as buffer states against future European aggression. Nevertheless, look to examples such as the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 against Communist occupation and the brutal Soviet response to this to see how much 'liberating' Russia was really doing.
As for taking credit for the American Revolution: that is absolute nonsense. It wouldn't have been possible without France, but Russia had nothing to do with it.